R v McQuillan

The applicant in this matter appealed against the sentence imposed following a guilty plea to 24 charges, including breaking and entering, stealing, and fraud. The sentence imposed was concurrent imprisonment terms such that the time served for the new offences would be five years. The sentences were cumulative on the remaining term of imprisonment for a prior sentence. The applicant breached parole in committing the instant offences and was to be extradited interstate to serve another term of imprisonment at the conclusion of the sentence. The applicant contended that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive in the totality of the circumstances.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the sentence failed to recognise mitigating factors. The court considered whether the pre-sentence custody declaration should have been made in relation to the time served following the suspension of parole until sentencing for the new offences. The court noted that the applicant breached parole and had a history of offending while on parole. The court also noted that the applicant pleaded guilty at an early stage and that the sentencing judge ordered parole eligibility after one-third of the sentence had been served.

The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive in the totality of the circumstances. The court noted that the applicant had a history of offending while on parole and that the sentence imposed was not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offending. The court also found that the sentence recognised the mitigating factors, including the applicant's early guilty plea. The court further found that there was no need for a pre-sentence custody declaration as the applicant had already served time in custody following the suspension of parole until sentencing for the new offences.

The application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.